The Myth of Bio and Carbon Offset

G

Gludy

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Aug 2001
Messages
7,171
Location
Brecon, Wales
www.sailingvideos4us.com
Just listeneing to the news and research just published claims it provides proof that the idea of offset is all rubbish. The rersearch was publsihed 2 weeks ago and is authoritive.

Growing oil seed rape and then buring the fuel in a cycle actually produces 70% more CO2 than just burning the same fossil fuel!!!!

So the stampede with offset is actually doing damage to the atmosphere!
Germany will have to stop the zero charge on bio fuels and tax it higher than any?
All those offset companies will hjave to close?
What will be the effect?
 
At last a coherent explanation for Global Warmimg. I'm off to buy my hat and flag.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
i dont know you hear this story and soon another comes which says the opposite
the real problem that there might be apart from the highly global warning issue is how much oil is remaining???

worst conclussion say with current reserves we have about 20 years
intermediate survey 50+
while those more optimistic say 100+
surely preparing for a way to produce alternative fuel which seems compatabile looks like the only way to keep the world on moving
remember that 85% of energy needs in the world are provided by fossil fuels

I think in the next 10 years a revolution will come which might really give the way to a new energy market with a better offer demand
I personally hope this happens as it is the only way to reduce the 80$+ a barrel of oil prices
I think it is also time for the Goverments to really wake up on this issue as 20% of Co2 problems are from energy needs which is provided in most cases by GOVT corps
Transport is 12% and it seems that the transport issue is the one most on the reduction side thanks to highly innovative private inniative
 
I think that the "problem" is that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millenia, whereas growing then using is a cyclical process whereby carbon dioxide is absorbed during photosynthesis of the growing plant, then released by oxidation of its biomass.

that said you would have to believe in the BOLLOX that global warming is attributable to Carbon Dioxide levels. I am ABSOLUTELY committed to not screwing the planet, but the [--word removed--] that is talked about CO2 is a distraction created in order to raise taxes.

The flying spaghetti monster has my vote, and the graph of pirate levels against global temperatures is at least as relevant as Al Gore's correlation between CO2 and temperatures (the real science is that CO2 levels do rise along with temperature, largely due to increased bio activity... yes the graphs match)

oops, shouldn't be getting serious. maybe another beer... /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the "problem" is that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millenia, whereas growing then using is a cyclical process whereby carbon dioxide is absorbed during photosynthesis of the growing plant, then released by oxidation of its biomass.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is understood but what the research shows is that the total energy used in growing the crops, distributing them, processing them etc after deduction of the recycled energy leave an effect on the planet that is 70% more than there would be by directly burning the fossil fuel in the first place.

I think the whole offset myth will collapse in on itself.

By the way how much of all the extra tax is used to actually help lower CO2 levels? Next to nothing.
 
Aye tiss the prob of growing spaghetti and delivering said crop with 4x4's.

Then again, what happened the first time round?
Didn,t this place get warm again a bit earlier?

Neanderthals must have had some serious 4x4's
That bleedin Fred Flinstone and Barney what dun it I reckon.
"Yabba Dabba Doo!"
Quote " So the stampede with offset is actually doing damage to the atmosphere!"
See that's what must have happened way back.
I reckon Fred's offset steering and propulsion method is what got the whole Gig underway (whilst making way) and playing with His balls was popular too.
So bowling alleys need to be inspected and regulated.
In fact a lot of this research and findings are due to people with too much time on their hands and playing with their balls!
 
Main issue with bio fuel is that it will drive up the price of basic foodstuffs. There is a probable shortage of suitable land but the real killer is lack of water.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Of course that is understood but what the research shows is that the total energy used in growing the crops, distributing them, processing them etc after deduction of the recycled energy leave an effect on the planet that is 70% more than there would be by directly burning the fossil fuel in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only real way would be to grow plants (trees, straw or whatever has a high carbon content) then to bury it so deep that its carbon won't be released. In a few million years you can dig it up again as coal.
 
but even oil has a price
production of fossil fuel/oil accounts for 30% to global warning
plants on the other side realease natural elements which can combat what you are burning and consuming
most of the issue of global warning is partly to blame for land relcamation and decrease in trees etc
 
But the research, which I think is from a respectable source in Europe, allows for all the factors and shows that after allowing for the CO2 absordbed during growing and given out furing use you are still worse off than just burning the same amount of fossil fuel. Therefore bio is not the answer as it makes the problem worse not better and the enire offset industry will have to go to the wall.

I am only reporting the research but I do happen to think that it is probably correct.

That of course is without the problems of land and water to grwo the stuff in the first place.
 
We just have to be patient and wait for the oil companies to release the engine conversions that allow internal combustion to run on water.
We've all heard about these engines that were unveiled in the '60s and then mysteriously disappeared along with their inventors.
>>>>
Global warming creates C02, not the other way round!
 
[ QUOTE ]
We just have to be patient and wait for the oil companies to release the engine conversions that allow internal combustion to run on water.
We've all heard about these engines that were unveiled in the '60s and then mysteriously disappeared along with their inventors.
>>>>
Global warming creates C02, not the other way round!

[/ QUOTE ]

and do you think they want to allow that, I very much doubt it
they will do it when the world is in a corner to much trillions involved
 
Loved the FSM considering converting, but only if ritual contains partially clad nubile maidens. Also liked the gov anouncement about a Severn barrage, just think of all that extra floaty stuff. The eco warriors can't complain cos they have been campaigning for years for green energy
 
I would have preferred an even bigger project for the Severn barrage - further down so that it cupplied all the UK's energy resource or at lest 50% of it. As it is 5% is OK but lacks imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top